[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The New California Republic]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.

Regarding that, you have constantly refused to answer a question that pertains to why the fetus gets a right that nobody else has, so we can take your "it's a step in the right direction" judgment with a pinch of salt since that aspect remains unanswered.

[Thepeopl]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.

Leviticus 21:16
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles

So if you follow only old testament, disabled ppl aren't submitted to heaven. Aren't allowed to worship.

Isaiah 56:3-5
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off

Jesus contradicts this in new testament.

[Vassenor]

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.

Why is it so important that the US reduce women to breeding stock?

[Grave_n_idle]

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.

Leviticus 21:16
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles

So if you follow only old testament, disabled ppl aren't submitted to heaven. Aren't allowed to worship.

Isaiah 56:3-5
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off

Jesus contradicts this in new testament.

If you follow only the old testament, the whole discussion of 'heaven' is irrelevant. But disabled people were allowed to worship - the passage you are talking about in Leviticus is about priesthood, and who can pass beyond the sanctuary veil and offer the sacrifice of bread. Jesus doesn't really speak to the restriction on the priesthood - he just says that the optimal situation is for men to castrate themselves.

[Grave_n_idle]

Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.

Why is it so important that the US reduce women to breeding stock?

It's not really about breeding stock, it's about control.

[Sundiata]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.

I'm not referring to scripture; it's not relevant in this instance. Plus, each time you've mentioned scripture you've been wrong about the context because you don't understand the books of the Bible.

[New haven america]

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.

I'm not referring to scripture; it's not relevant in this instance. Plus, each time you've mentioned scripture you've been wrong about the context because you don't understand the books of the Bible.

Well I mean, neither does most of Opus Dei but that doesn't stop a certain someone.

[Sundiata]

I'm not referring to scripture; it's not relevant in this instance. Plus, each time you've mentioned scripture you've been wrong about the context because you don't understand the books of the Bible.

Well I mean, neither does most of Opus Dei but that doesn't stop a certain someone.

Again, I'm not referring to any of these things.

[The New California Republic]

There isn't even any scriptural justification for such moral takes. What does it all hinge on, "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't see any reason why that implies humans need to be maximizing the population, one could just as easily interpret it as "just don't let yourselves go extinct."

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

Sorry but not all life is "good", so it'd probably be better if you didn't make blanket statements like that.

[Sundiata]

It's mutilation to voluntarily render oneself sterile for the sake of sterility. A vasectomy is an immoral decision for a man but generally for reasons separate from the immorality of abortion. Life is good and vasectomies don't perpetuate life and so don't perpetuate good.

Sorry but not all life is "good", so it'd probably be better if you didn't make blanket statements like that.

Sure, human life is good.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry but not all life is "good", so it'd probably be better if you didn't make blanket statements like that.

Sure, human life is good.

Nope, not even that narrow view of it passes muster.

[Sundiata]

Sure, human life is good.

Nope, not even that narrow view of it passes muster.

Okay.

[Esternial]

Sorry but not all life is "good", so it'd probably be better if you didn't make blanket statements like that.

Sure, human life is good.

What if preserving a particular human life would lead to suffering of it or even others in the future?

What if someone tries to murder me? Am I allowed to kill in self-defense? Would that make my actions somehow moral?

[Sundiata]

Sure, human life is good.

What if preserving a particular human life would lead to suffering of it or even others in the future?

What if someone tries to murder me? Am I allowed to kill in self-defense? Would that make my actions somehow moral?

So much of life is suffering but we shouldn't end it preemptively. In the instance of combat, it's better not to intend the killing of an opponent.

[Vassenor]

What if preserving a particular human life would lead to suffering of it or even others in the future?

What if someone tries to murder me? Am I allowed to kill in self-defense? Would that make my actions somehow moral?

So much of life is suffering but we shouldn't end it preemptively. In the instance of combat, it's better not to intend the killing of an opponent.

So we should prolong the suffering of the mother instead?

[Sundiata]

So much of life is suffering but we shouldn't end it preemptively. In the instance of combat, it's better not to intend the killing of an opponent.

So we should prolong the suffering of the mother instead?

If we can help it, not unnecessarily.

[San Lumen]

So we should prolong the suffering of the mother instead?

If we can help it, not unnecessarily.

Why does a fetus get more rights than any person?

[Ifreann]

I was planning to spend the weekend playing video games online with my friends, but that wouldn't propagate life, so instead I guess I'll go out to the re-opening night clubs and see about having some unprotected sex. God wills it.

[Thermodolia]

Good work, Texas.

I think its very possible the court overturns Roe.

Unlikely actually. The court will hear arguments about how this undermines the rule of law and if they uphold it then the entire constitution is under attack.

It’s most likely that the court will rule that Texas can ban abortion up to X amount of weeks, but Roe is still constitutional however the court will strike down the enforcement of the law as unconstitutional.

A total declaration of unconstitutionality wouldn’t achieve the desired goal of undermining Roe while letting it stand would destroy the constitution and open the door for NY and CA to ban guns in the same manner, and totally reversing on roe would leave them without a job and give democrats such a massive surge that would make republicans shit themselves.

Remember “overturn Roe” is an extremely large cash grab for the GOP, destroying that cash flow would be detrimental to them.

---

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Texas fired back at the Biden administration’s challenge to its nearly complete ban of abortions in a response brief filed Thursday asserting the government’s lawsuit was out of bounds, while also suggesting the court take another look at the validity of its landmark abortion decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[…] The Biden administration then sued to challenge the law and U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, blocked SB 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Only 48 hours later, the Fifth Circuit, seen by many as the most conservative appeals court in the country, overturned Pitman's ruling in a 2-1 decision.

On Monday, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit's order that has allowed the law to continue to be enforced.

In its response filed Thursday, Texas claims the DOJ lacks equitable cause and jurisdiction to sue Texas over SB 8. The government alleges the law violates the 14th Amendment, but Texas argues the right to an abortion is not required by law.

“The idea that the constitution requires states to permit a woman to abort her unborn child is unsupported by any constitutional text, history, or tradition,” the brief states.

The Department of Justice suggested the high court could bypass the Fifth Circuit and hear arguments in the case. Texas says that if the court decides to take that route, it should consider overturning Roe and Casey.

“The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey,” the response brief states. “Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test …. If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Good work, Texas.

---

Texas has now officially asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.

---

It’s not good news. If this law remains on the books it will undermine the rule of law. You want California, NY, and Illinois to declare guns illegal and issue a bounty against anyone who helps you remotely obtain a gun? You want that? Because that’s what will happen if the law remains.

Not to mention the funds that would dry up because abortion has been “defeated”, nor the wave of democrat support that would occur and the end of the court as we know it

[Dogmeat]

The fact of celibacy is no babies. The fact of vasectomy is no babies.* The fact is that these things are equivalent.** Except that one gets to have sex.

And it's very obvious that the Catholic church cannot abide their being no consequences for that.

*usually
**With vasectomy being slightly superior. In the sense that it does, rarely, produce babies. Which is what you want.

Let's not focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church. People should not make like rabbits, no?

You mean have sex for procreation? Because that's what rabbits do.

Humans have sex for fun and to strengthen social bonds. Like bonobos. And vasectomy is no hindrance to that.

[Thermodolia]

Let's not focus on the teachings of the Catholic Church. People should not make like rabbits, no?

You mean have sex for procreation? Because that's what rabbits do.

Humans have sex for fun and to strengthen social bonds. Like bonobos. And vasectomy is no hindrance to that.

Or everyone can be gay. Same outcome even more superior as no surgery is needed

[Dogmeat]

You mean have sex for procreation? Because that's what rabbits do.

Humans have sex for fun and to strengthen social bonds. Like bonobos. And vasectomy is no hindrance to that.

Or everyone can be gay. Same outcome even more superior as no surgery is needed

Well damn. I mean, I'm not attracted to other men, but... your logic is indisputable.

I guess I've got no choice. Deus Vult!

[The Alma Mater]

You mean have sex for procreation? Because that's what rabbits do.

Humans have sex for fun and to strengthen social bonds. Like bonobos. And vasectomy is no hindrance to that.

Or everyone can be gay. Same outcome even more superior as no surgery is needed

And remember: traditionally gay men became monks. So the Church wins as well.

[Grave_n_idle]

You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.

I'm not referring to scripture; it's not relevant in this instance. Plus, each time you've mentioned scripture you've been wrong about the context because you don't understand the books of the Bible.

I'm well aware you're not referring to scripture. That's why I advised you to read the scripture.

If you're going to keep bringing religious arguments to the table, expect to be picked up on them.

As for whether I understand the books or not, that's debatable. But we're not having that debate - we're addressing your bad religious arguments on the topic of abortion and any other religious hijack you decide you have to follow.

If you want to discuss whether I understand the books or not, start a thread about it.

[Sundiata]

I'm not referring to scripture; it's not relevant in this instance. Plus, each time you've mentioned scripture you've been wrong about the context because you don't understand the books of the Bible.

I'm well aware you're not referring to scripture. That's why I advised you to read the scripture.

If you're going to keep bringing religious arguments to the table, expect to be picked up on them.

As for whether I understand the books or not, that's debatable. But we're not having that debate - we're addressing your bad religious arguments on the topic of abortion and any other religious hijack you decide you have to follow.

If you want to discuss whether I understand the books or not, start a thread about it.

I'm not making religious arguments; it's irrelevant that you're raising the subject of scripture.